Question for those opposed to rr's

[trow]

Would you guys who are so strongly opposed to Road Races (which I should say I am opposed, but not strongly opposed) rather the league go back on its growth or would you rather they continue to use the VISION TG has, and do what they have to do to make it grow?

[debdrake]

Road courses won't grow the league - if road courses were the answer, CART wouldn't be in so much trouble.

You really want to grow the league? One word. Daytona.

[hdolan]

why grow the league in the direction we've already been...the IRl has sold out to the motor people...it is dominated by ex-ART teams...it has announced it will have 2-4 road courses by 2005...it will then announce that the series will race on street courses...when does it stop...flame me if you like, but, these are the facts...

[trow]

i think you're right about daytona debdrake, but nascar won't allow that ever happen just in case the series puts on a better show.

howard, i understand you're concerned as everyone is about adding rr's. I think C^RT wasted alot of money and instead of putting money back into the series they blew it on varied interests by team owners IMO. with Ungar running the business side and barnhart running the ops side we've got an adv over the previous C^RT people to run a series consisting of rr's and majority ovals a chance to shine. jmho.

[gofastturnleft]

The vision/concept has been modified along the way already. Just because they said we might have road courses a bunch of years ago doesn't mean for a second that it must happen.

Adding a handful of road courses will not satisfy the road racing fans. Too little, too late.

Adding a handful of road courses will not satisfy the road racing industry. Way too few races of this nature will only serve to allienate a whole bunch of facilities. Particularly if the courses chosen are street circuits.

Adding a handful of road courses does nothing but create additional costs for the teams. Testing, testing, testing. Not to mention an update kit or a whoile second set of required spare parts int he transporter that can only be used at a handful of venues.

Adding a handful of road courses only serves to blur the lines of what the IndyCar brand is.

If it means going back on some puported vision then I certainly support the no road racing mantra.

[hdolan]

"Although the IRL's focus is adding permanent road courses, Nation said adding temporary street courses is "not out of the question."

from the article...

[STAND E]

Originally posted by trow
i think you're right about daytona debdrake, but nascar won't allow that ever happen just in case the series puts on a better show.
...

IMS allowed Nascar to run there finally for the first BY400, and if they put on a superb show, I don't think it was expected to reflect badly on the Indianapolis 500. It is a different kind of racing. I similarly don't see that a successful IRL race at Daytona is any bad reflection on NASCAR.

What about the concept that IRL and NASCAR can work together to take racing as a whole to the next level?

(Having just seen the cool BY400 today).

Seen on a T-shirt in the crowd: "Take it to the next LEVEL."

trow: I'm in favor of Daytona done safely, but I'm also in favor of road racing done right.

[hdolan]

"Adding a handful of road courses does nothing but create additional costs for the teams. Testing, testing, testing. Not to mention an update kit or a whoile second set of required spare parts int he transporter that can only be used at a handful of venues. "

I think that's what Mr Long said...

[ensign14]

They were averaging 170+mph for a race at Daytona back in 1959. And there was a fatality. What would the equivalent be today? 260mph? No chance of IRL at Daytona, it would be tantamount to mass suicide.

[grogg]

Ading one or two road courses may not be so bad. The problem is it will not end there. I'm willing to bet by 2010 the IRL will be close to 40% RC and SC. After all, most of the drivers and car owners will be behind it.

[Tex]

The IRL needs to do something to create some more interest. I don't like the idea of RR. Not because I dislike that type racing. But because of the additional costs.
Maybe TG has determined 8 years of test marketing an all-oval series is enough. It is not working. It is not working for the series and it is not working for the 500. It is not working for TV. It is not working for the track attendance. Maybe it is time to try a different approach.
We've had CART before and a lot of us didn't like it. Why are we expected to like it this time.
I don't know what the answer is. My fear is there isn't one.

Just hope Tony's not considering a street festival with rock music.

[Lucky161]

EVERY IRL RACE AT TMS HAS BEEN BETTER THAN EVERY CUP RACE. But they still pack the place for the Cup and only get about half full for the IRL. So I don't think putting on a better race at Daytona would affect anything.

Tex, you got it! We didn't like the product CART put on then and we won't like it again if the IRL puts out the same product.

[Ganassifan]

Originally posted by debdrake
Road courses won't grow the league - if road courses were the answer, CART wouldn't be in so much trouble.

You really want to grow the league? One word. Daytona.

CART's problems have nada to do with their selection of racing facilities.

[jmart]

Originally posted by Ganassifan
CART's problems have nada to do with their selection of racing facilities.

Road America Wrapup from SPEED

Check out the last para. This is CART's quintessential track.

jmart

[BlueStang]

If the IRL does it, who says it will be the same product?? I am not sure that it will be.